Apple reportedly picking Beats’ brain over music subscriptions

The two companies aren't working together yet, but they may be sharing tips.

Apple has reportedly engaged in talks over a "potential music service partnership" with Beats Electronics, according to Reuters. The report, published Wednesday, claims Beats CEO Jimmy Iovine met with Apple CEO Tim Cook and head of Internet services Eddy Cue in February to talk about Beats' new music subscription service.

While it has long been rumored that Apple is considering its own subscription music service, it doesn't appear that Apple is trying to partner with Beats. Rather, the meeting was reportedly "informational," with the Apple executives interested in learning about the rollout plans and business model. According to Reuters, no deal was discussed during the February meeting.

So what, exactly, is the fuss if the two companies aren't working together yet? Iovine claims to have pitched Steve Jobs on a subscription music service 10 years ago, but Apple wasn't ready to pay enough to the music labels at that time. Apple executives Cook and Cue may be picking Iovine's brain in preparation for a future offering from Apple.

Rumors about a subscription/streaming service from Apple date back to at least 2007, but they have popped up more and more frequently as of late. The most recent news on this front came from Bloomberg, which claimed Apple might launch a Pandora-like service in the first three months of 2013. That obviously hasn't happened yet, so it's a reasonable assumption that Apple is still trying to work out the details. If the company gets lucky with licensing deals this year, perhaps we'll hear more about it during Apple's fall media event, which typically focuses on iPods and music.

Jacqui Cheng
Jacqui is an Editor at Large at Ars Technica, where she has spent the last eight years writing about Apple culture, gadgets, social networking, privacy, and more. Emailjacqui@arstechnica.com//Twitter@eJacqui

Apple has to stop trying to be all things to all people. There are already plenty of subscription music services out there. We don't need another and we certainly don't want one that is limited to one vendor's devices.

Apple has to stop trying to be all things to all people. There are already plenty of subscription music services out there. We don't need another and we certainly don't want one that is limited to one vendor's devices.

"Please Apple, don't come in and make a market more competitive!"

I'm pretty sure this can only be a good thing, and I for one am interested in a service more integrated into iOS and my iTunes library.

Apple has to stop trying to be all things to all people. There are already plenty of subscription music services out there. We don't need another and we certainly don't want one that is limited to one vendor's devices.

"Please Apple, don't come in and make a market more competitive!"

I'm pretty sure this can only be a good thing, and I for one am interested in a service more integrated into iOS and my iTunes library.

I don't think adding a new service that is locked to just one hardware vendor could really be considered making the market more competitive. If it takes off and becomes dominant thanks to the privileged access to the user's phone it gets as an Apple product, it would actually have the opposite effect.

There was some chatter awhile back about Iovine showing interest in hi resolution downloads, and of such a possibility of Apple providing same (or at least lossless downloads, available from others). So that very shaky connection between the two entities might be smoldering.

But given what both Apple has thus far provided, and Iovine's desire for marketing over sound quality regarding Beats headphones I'd say it's bunk unless "better sound" happens by accident.

On the contrary, more the merrier. More services, more choices, more price points.

Yeah, that worked really well in the eBook industry. Apple entered, struck illegal agreements with the major publishers, and prices went up for everyone. Fantastic. I hope that happens in more markets.

On the contrary, more the merrier. More services, more choices, more price points.

Yeah, that worked really well in the eBook industry. Apple entered, struck illegal agreements with the major publishers, and prices went up for everyone. Fantastic. I hope that happens in more markets.

Apple dealt with the ebook biz like a scene out of "The Godfather."

"OK, we want a 30% cut and you can't sell to any else cheaper than our deal. Capice?!"

Of note, it may not necessarily be about Beats. Jimmy Iovine is also one of the biggest music producers in the industry, i.e. U2, a number of other bands, so it'd be natural for Apple, esp the iTunes division, to talk with him on a semi-regular basis

On the contrary, more the merrier. More services, more choices, more price points.

Yeah, that worked really well in the eBook industry. Apple entered, struck illegal agreements with the major publishers, and prices went up for everyone. Fantastic. I hope that happens in more markets.

Apple dealt with the ebook biz like a scene out of "The Godfather."

"OK, we want a 30% cut and you can't sell to any else cheaper than our deal. Capice?!"

I think the pricing might have been more along what publishers wanted...if I understand correctly, they are perpetually staring at their business model circling the drain as Amazon drives margins lower and lower...

Though myself I'm really not interested in a radio style service. While it's nice to have that as a choice, very often I want to listen to something specific. Pandora's rules of "you can only skip a song 3 times", "you can only hear 2 songs by a specific artist in 3 hours" get a hearty fuck you.

I suspect the conversation touched on Beats acquisition of the MOG streaming service and what the plans are and how the integration is going, as Beats didn't seem to have any streaming expertise before they picked up MOG.

I don't think adding a new service that is locked to just one hardware vendor could really be considered making the market more competitive. If it takes off and becomes dominant thanks to the privileged access to the user's phone it gets as an Apple product, it would actually have the opposite effect.

Don't know if you actually understand what you are saying. An Apple music subscription service no doubt would offer more competition in the iOS landscape, because it would compete with other services, maybe pushing them to lower prices or add features (this is what is called competition).

For the same reason (being limited to a platform) what you can say it can't happen, how can a service for iOS only be detrimental to competition on platform where it doesn't even exists? People on Android or WP will abandon, don't know, Pandora for a service they can't use?